• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wife of truck driver in bridge collapse says husband has 'impeccable' record

Fenton said:
IF the truck , which sounds like it was loaded to exceed 80,000 pounds, which is the wieght limit or use to be the limit on a over the road haul, HIT the girder, IT IS THE TRUCK DRIVERS FAULT.

No one elses.

The claims of crumbling infrastructure are a bit premature, unless any of you have degrees in structural engineering and have access to the data on this specific bridge.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. First off, while the 80K weight limit is still in effect, that applies to vehicles in general. Just as you can get special permits for oversized loads so can there be permits for over weight loads. Given that this truck had an escort, then likely it had those permits. So the weight is not the driver's fault.

The next question I have is the height of the load vs the clearance of he bridge. While I'm not applying this to the collapsed bridge, I've seen where the posted clearance is higher than the actual physical clearance. There is a video on youtube somewhere (I'll link if I find it) where trucks are hitting a bridge going under it because the posted clearance says they could make it. The poster notes that the sign is improper. In this specific case, given the location of the hit on the load and the images I can see of the bridge, I have to wonder if there was any settling on the overhead. If so then the driver cannot be at fault since he would have no way of knowing that the outside of the arches were lower than they should have been. He would not have been going across that bridge if he didn't have the clearance. Route planning is part of the permit process.

image.jpg


For the record I am a professional truck driver Class A CDL with over 15 years of experience.

CanadaJohn said:
I would expect that the US is no different from here in Canada. Those who use the roads, drivers of personal automobiles and businesses who truck merchandise across the continent, have been paying excessive gasoline taxes, driver and vehicle licensing fees and other charges for decades, presumably to fund regular infrastructure maintenance and for new roads and bridges, etc. Unfortunately, political thieves have stolen that money to fund their own pet projects, social welfare programs, arts grants and other nonsense always saying they could put off the road/infrastructure work for another year. Now we have trillions of dollars of new building and maintenance work to do and no way to fund it.

This is simply another example of past generations saddling the current and future generations with their irresponsible and selfish management of the public's money and facilities. It's shameful.
Click to expand...

We've had a real problem here in Maryland with our transportation fund being raided for general use. Then the governor claimed that fees and taxes had to be raised to cover transportation expenses.
 
shrubnose said:
After he hit the bridge his record was no longer impeccable. He looks pretty peccable now.
Click to expand...

Again not necessarily. His record would still be impeccable if he were going through an intersection and another vehicle ran a red light to crash into him. Likewise here, if the bridge structure (having not read pages 2-27 of this thread) can be shown to have been altered, most likely due to age, then he is not at fault and thus his record remains intact.
 
Born Free said:
Have you not ever heard of a stupid truck driver.
Click to expand...
11Foot8.com is dedicated to one bridge that has a chronic problem with idiots hitting it. So many trucks hit this bridge that they constructed a beam that takes the impact instead of the bridge.

 
apdst said:
The trucking company bought a bridge.
Click to expand...
LOL...

Probably so, at least their insurance. I still am in disbelief that the driver hit the beam.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
11Foot8.com is dedicated to one bridge that has a chronic problem with idiots hitting it. So many trucks hit this bridge that they constructed a beam that takes the impact instead of the bridge.

Click to expand...

OMG...

That is great!

I'm amazed I didn't see any cars rear ending a truck, bus, etc.
 
maquiscat said:
Not necessarily. First off, while the 80K weight limit is still in effect, that applies to vehicles in general. Just as you can get special permits for oversized loads so can there be permits for over weight loads. Given that this truck had an escort, then likely it had those permits. So the weight is not the driver's fault.

The next question I have is the height of the load vs the clearance of he bridge. While I'm not applying this to the collapsed bridge, I've seen where the posted clearance is higher than the actual physical clearance. There is a video on youtube somewhere (I'll link if I find it) where trucks are hitting a bridge going under it because the posted clearance says they could make it. The poster notes that the sign is improper. In this specific case, given the location of the hit on the load and the images I can see of the bridge, I have to wonder if there was any settling on the overhead. If so then the driver cannot be at fault since he would have no way of knowing that the outside of the arches were lower than they should have been. He would not have been going across that bridge if he didn't have the clearance. Route planning is part of the permit process.

image.jpg


For the record I am a professional truck driver Class A CDL with over 15 years of experience.



We've had a real problem here in Maryland with our transportation fund being raided for general use. Then the governor claimed that fees and taxes had to be raised to cover transportation expenses.
Click to expand...

The posted clearance is always the lowest bottom surface of the bridge.

If I remember right, the dude's permit restricted him to the left lane on the bridge and he was in the right lane.
 
Most trucks that strike bridges overhead..... the truck usually loses.

In this instance, the overload permit was issued.

The driver is ultimately 100% responsible for knowing the weight, width and height of the trailer or cargo he is hauling.

The operator needs to know vehicle height and bridge height, respectively. no excuses.

without question.

 
Last edited:
shlunka said:
Yep, I'm sure that girder being struck was more responsible than the outdated nature of the bridge itself...
Click to expand...

If you look at the structure of the bridge, it's only means of support is from above, the girders, except for the strategically placed concrete pilings below and concrete arches on the sides.
 
maquiscat said:
Again not necessarily. His record would still be impeccable if he were going through an intersection and another vehicle ran a red light to crash into him. Likewise here, if the bridge structure (having not read pages 2-27 of this thread) can be shown to have been altered, most likely due to age, then he is not at fault and thus his record remains intact.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




This is pretty frickin' simple-The man was driving the truck which hit the bridge, after he hit the bridge it collapsed.

What more do I need to say? Obviously driving a vehicle into any structure is a violation of law.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
11Foot8.com is dedicated to one bridge that has a chronic problem with idiots hitting it. So many trucks hit this bridge that they constructed a beam that takes the impact instead of the bridge.

Click to expand...


Now that is over the top of stupid. Close the road for Christ's sake.
 
apdst said:
The posted clearance is always the lowest bottom surface of the bridge.

If I remember right, the dude's permit restricted him to the left lane on the bridge and he was in the right lane.
Click to expand...

Were there other story links? Do you remember what they were or at least where in the thread they got posted? The links I've seen so far made no mention of permit violations

shrubnose said:
This is pretty frickin' simple-The man was driving the truck which hit the bridge, after he hit the bridge it collapsed.

What more do I need to say? Obviously driving a vehicle into any structure is a violation of law.
Click to expand...

You are not in violation of the law if the clearance sign is wrong and you would have cleared the structure had it been correct? For example If the sign says 13' clearance and you are 12'6" but the clearance is actually 12'5", you are not in violation of the law. Furthermore, if the structure was originally higher but has settled and the sign isn't updated again you are not in violation of the law.

Now for this specific case I am not automatically giving the driver a pass. If there are more details as to why it was his fault, please point out the post numbers. Otherwise I am going off the OP link and noting why the driver may not be at fault. In other words, the linked article is scarce enough on details that it really could go either way.
 
Jerry said:
Because his direct rout was approved by the city when they issued his permit.
Click to expand...

WA State routes are issued by the state. Permits issued by the city are for routing on city streets. I-5 is state route. Permit and route were state issue in this case.

I still do oversize movements occasionally.
 
maquiscat said:
Were there other story links? Do you remember what they were or at least where in the thread they got posted? The links I've seen so far made no mention of permit violations



You are not in violation of the law if the clearance sign is wrong and you would have cleared the structure had it been correct? For example If the sign says 13' clearance and you are 12'6" but the clearance is actually 12'5", you are not in violation of the law. Furthermore, if the structure was originally higher but has settled and the sign isn't updated again you are not in violation of the law.

Now for this specific case I am not automatically giving the driver a pass. If there are more details as to why it was his fault, please point out the post numbers. Otherwise I am going off the OP link and noting why the driver may not be at fault. In other words, the linked article is scarce enough on details that it really could go either way.
Click to expand...

Negative driver.
 
PirateMk1 said:
WA State routes are issued by the state. Permits issued by the city are for routing on city streets. I-5 is state route. Permit and route were state issue in this case.

I still do oversize movements occasionally.
Click to expand...

Do WA permits have the disclaimer absolving the state from any responsibility for hits and wrecks?
 
apdst said:
Do WA permits have the disclaimer absolving the state from any responsibility for hits and wrecks?
Click to expand...

Actually yes, the permits absolve the state of pretty much everything their fault or not. They could issue a bad route and would be technically not liable. My opinion on this is there blame to go all around, but in the end the driver is the PIC, and therefore ultimately responsible. The bridge was ready to come down. That wasn't a major strike. Not even remotely. A major strike would have stopped the truck cold. From what I understand he was supposed to be in the left lane but was pinned in by traffic. There is a reason for pilot cars and traffic flow control is amongst them. The high pole car should have warned him as well. They are partially liable. In the end though its on the driver. He should have stopped cold if necessary. I have had to do that, that why I have beacons and pilot cars on the big loads besides statutory need. If necessary I would get the police to help out. From what I read, the situation is similar to an aircraft accident lots of small things adding up to a major incident.
 
Born Free said:
Now that is over the top of stupid. Close the road for Christ's sake.
Click to expand...

You would think that the big sign would be enough. The sign has flashing lights that come on when a vehicle is too tall to pass under the train trestle. So a big as sign that literally tells the driver that they are too tall and idiots still hit the dam thing.

The guy that hit the bridge with his over sized load should have known his route prior to driving it and should have known that he would hit the bridge. It is clearly his fault period.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
You would think that the big sign would be enough. The sign has flashing lights that come on when a vehicle is too tall to pass under the train trestle. So a big as sign that literally tells the driver that they are too tall and idiots still hit the dam thing.

The guy that hit the bridge with his over sized load should have known his route prior to driving it and should have known that he would hit the bridge. It is clearly his fault period.
Click to expand...

What did his permits say as the route to take? What did the pilot car radio to him as to the heights of the structure he coming up on? What if he approached the bridge from a different street?

I'm not saying that he wasn't at fault in any way, but there are lots of questions you are leaving out for your assumptions. Did he receive a ticket?
 
FreedomFromAll said:
You would think that the big sign would be enough. The sign has flashing lights that come on when a vehicle is too tall to pass under the train trestle. So a big as sign that literally tells the driver that they are too tall and idiots still hit the dam thing.

The guy that hit the bridge with his over sized load should have known his route prior to driving it and should have known that he would hit the bridge. It is clearly his fault period.
Click to expand...

I understand all that and agree, but in reality as that video shows, people are not used to going under a bridge and it being to low to go under. To allow that many accidents to continue is ludicrous. Dig the road down or raise the damn bridge, but to do nothing is criminal. This bridge is a death trap and it is irresponsible to not fix it.
 
Born Free said:
I understand all that and agree, but in reality as that video shows, people are not used to going under a bridge and it being to low to go under. To allow that many accidents to continue is ludicrous. Dig the road down or raise the damn bridge, but to do nothing is criminal. This bridge is a death trap and it is irresponsible to not fix it.
Click to expand...

And I agree that inadequate road ways should be fixed. A truck hitting a girder (over sized or not) should not end with a collapsed bridge. But there isnt anything wrong with roadways that dont allow heavy duty vehicle traffic. Every truck that hit the train trestle shows the incompetence of the driver. ANd it is the same type of incompetence that caused that bridge to collapse. So in lieu of spending millions of tax payers dollars perhaps enforcement of traffic laws could at the very least help. There isnt anything wrong with making people follow existing traffic laws that were designed to avoid such things. Driver should be responsible for their actions. We cant really make the equivalent of a corner less world for drivers.

Of course the bridge that collapsed should have been retro fitted to prevent such a thing from happening. Just as the train trestle in that video was retro fitted with a beam to protect the bridge was. At the very least the I-5 bridge should have had signage indicating something.
 
j-mac said:
What did his permits say as the route to take? What did the pilot car radio to him as to the heights of the structure he coming up on? What if he approached the bridge from a different street?

I'm not saying that he wasn't at fault in any way, but there are lots of questions you are leaving out for your assumptions. Did he receive a ticket?
Click to expand...

It comes down to accountability. And no one seems to be stepping up to the plate. ANd the NTSB’s final investigation report isnt done yet. The state, the trucking company, the driver, the pilot vehicle operator all deny responsibility. Obviously they are all at fault it was their combined responsibility to do their jobs properly that failed to happen.

According to the preliminary report the driver felt crowded by another semi-truck and moved to the right side of the bridge. Since the driver said that, the pilot vehicle is no longer responsible since the driver of the rig made a decision without her being involved. The report also points out that they knew the bridge had parts of the structure that if struck by a over sized load could lead to the collapse of the bridge. The State also was aware that semi trucks regularly hit bridges and pose a public safety hazard. Leading me to believe that it was a combination of driver error and the State of Washington's in ability to properly mark the roadway and maintain the bridge in a manner that isnt dangerous to users of said bridge.
 
Last edited:
FreedomFromAll said:
It comes down to accountability. And no one seems to be stepping up to the plate. ANd the NTSB’s final investigation report isnt done yet. The state, the trucking company, the driver, the pilot vehicle operator all deny responsibility. Obviously they are all at fault it was their combined responsibility to do their jobs properly that failed to happen.

According to the preliminary report the driver felt crowded by another semi-truck and moved to the right side of the bridge. Since the driver said that the pilot vehicle is no longer responsible since the driver of the rig made a decision without here being involved. The report also points out that they knew the bridge had parts of the structure that if struck by a over sized load could lead to the collapse of the bridge. The State also was aware that semi trucks regularly hit bridges and pose a public safety hazard. Leading me to believe that it was a combination of driver error and the State of Washington's in ability to properly mark the roadway and maintain the bridge in a manner that isnt dangerous to users of said bridge.
Click to expand...

Ok, I see what you're saying...
 
Well, tin can rig tops may hit the railing often and they would disintegrate like in that video posted a few posts back. This load was of solid steel construction. If he hit that train bridge with that load, with a train overhead, he would have likely destroyed that bridge and derailed the train.

In my view, the driver trusts the lead car, but in the end... It is the drivers fault and responsibility. Like pointed out, he was in the wrong lane. I will not alter from my point that this makes it solely his fault. It's not like he changed lanes to avoid a child running in the freeway...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom